If a game is worth it to me (it's fun, I have friends in it, the community is great), I'll pay whatever to play it. Doesn't matter to me if it's a monthly sub, or B2P, or cash shop whatever, or LTS. That being said - I usually am not comfortable enough with a game (don't know if I enjoy it ~enough~) to pay for a LTS until I've been playing it for a good while. I wouldn't chuck out $200 up front on a game, especially if it's an unknown quantity. There are some titles I'm leery of even chucking out the $40-50 box fee on (even many of those with trials). By the time I would be comfortable shelling out $200+ on a LTS, I would probably already have a year or more invested in the game with high playtime.
So, at least to me, it's all about investment and commitment. The more fun I have playing the game, the more I'm likely to spend on it. However, I won't much at all spend up front just on the promise of having fun - I've been burned way too many times on games that look great, or get great reviews, or get hyped, only to play the game for a few hours and never turn it back on again. Many times I feel as if I've wasted my money on that because it wasn't fun enough for me to warrant the money I spent on it.
That being said - LTS make for a great marketing item for players, but I don't think they will cripple a MMO financially. There is a lot you can do with a chunk of money upfront that you can't do with a trickle over time, even if that trickle over time is more money. One in the hand is worth two in the bush, and money in your pocket is always better than the promise of more money later on (which is never guaranteed). It's all about how you work your financial books - if you play the long game and plan for that more money over time, or if you want the capitol now to leverage for the future. That is for the accountants to really deal with moreso than anything.
As far as if it's in bad taste or not for Trion to say that about LTS - nah, they are just being honest about their income model. They depend on revenue over time, and that's how they have structured their costs and plan for the future - so they've already got a plan in place and LTS doesn't fit that for them.
Originally posted by cronius77 well i can kinda agree with him that they do need their sub fees because they do not have a cash shop except a mount and a couple of digital CE upgrades in their store. They literally do relay on paying the bills from sub fees and future projects like defiance they are working on. I would agree with you though if Trion wasnt actually developing their game with storm legion and spending TONS of dev resources changing their current game. Heck man if you look at what wow released with MOP and what Trion is releasing its like not even in the same league , wow bombs hard . So I kinda see where he is coming from that they need every dime they can get to keep up with development of their games. But its just like a text message, ive cussed out someone i thought was being a douche before when they werent , just because how things are worded. Sometimes meaning is missed in type.
WOW is another matter also. With the amount of money that theyrecieve on a monthly basis, they should be churning out new content every damn week lol. But you go a full year without anything. Blizzard should be ashamed of thier self.
blizzard does spend a lot of time trying to upgrade its REALLY old game engine though in their defense but they are just bad period and greedy. I know after trying MOP and seeing what the new end game is like in wow i wont be going back . All they released was pet battles a new talent system majority of their playerbase hates , a few new land masses , about 200 daily quests , and the same ol heroics and raiding garbage. PVP is still terrible , the community is still just as vile , and the game is just leagues behind current games out there . But blizzard is smart , they know their playerbase is dying off so they make the game more kid friendly , release lego blocks on cartoon network , and release cute panda races for both horde and alliance. See what they did there? its brilliant really.
Originally posted by halflife25 Originally posted by Torvaldr
You mean like the RIFT account bug where anyone could log in to your account without a password? A user found and submitted that bug and then Trion acknowledged it (only after it was published). Why do you think we have coinlock now (which is an awesome feature)? How about the 8 hour queues for the first week? How about numerous skill bugs and class issues where some mechanics have been broken.I've been there since before the beginning and RIFT has had several major issues along with their terminal performance struggle. It's a good game, but certainly no better than any other release out there. What has made those problems bearable is the very rapid development and deployment cycle Trion has; the same sort of cycle that Arena Net has.You make the "this game is better because I said so" claim like none of us have played both. Once again your biased agenda shows.When GW2 fans accuse others for 'biased agenda' it is a comedy gold. One just needs to have a look at the bug section of GW2 and find out the amount of bugs it has and how those bugs from release are still there.
No one else except for GW2 fans would claim that Rift and GW2 had EXACT amount of bugs or that Rift had more bugs than GW2.
Rift is knows for its stable and quality release. And anyone here who is un biased and not clouded by their own 'agenda' would freely admit it. I am not evena Rift fan or anything but this is not some secret that Rift had a great and stable launch with minimal bugs.
But thanks for the laugh. There is reason why Rift is known for one of the best launches along with games like LOTRO.
I thought Rift and GW2 both had pretty good launches - neither were flawless, but both were well above average as far as the industry goes. Of course, both had very, very long (mostly) open beta periods, which both companies software at the beginning of their open beta would have been considered "release quality" from most any other company in the industry.
Originally posted by cronius77 well i can kinda agree with him that they do need their sub fees because they do not have a cash shop except a mount and a couple of digital CE upgrades in their store. They literally do relay on paying the bills from sub fees and future projects like defiance they are working on. I would agree with you though if Trion wasnt actually developing their game with storm legion and spending TONS of dev resources changing their current game. Heck man if you look at what wow released with MOP and what Trion is releasing its like not even in the same league , wow bombs hard . So I kinda see where he is coming from that they need every dime they can get to keep up with development of their games. But its just like a text message, ive cussed out someone i thought was being a douche before when they werent , just because how things are worded. Sometimes meaning is missed in type.
WOW is another matter also. With the amount of money that theyrecieve on a monthly basis, they should be churning out new content every damn week lol. But you go a full year without anything. Blizzard should be ashamed of thier self.
blizzard does spend a lot of time trying to upgrade its REALLY old game engine though in their defense but they are just bad period and greedy. I know after trying MOP and seeing what the new end game is like in wow i wont be going back . All they released was pet battles a new talent system majority of their playerbase hates , a few new land masses , about 200 daily quests , and the same ol heroics and raiding garbage. PVP is still terrible , the community is still just as vile , and the game is just leagues behind current games out there . But blizzard is smart , they know their playerbase is dying off so they make the game more kid friendly , release lego blocks on cartoon network , and release cute panda races for both horde and alliance. See what they did there? its brilliant really.
Well remember what was said. " The only game able to kill WoW will be WoW" They seem to be on there way to a spank bottom.
Lots of people angry with my opinion, again its my opinion not a fact. I don't believe subs are good business model and telling your players you "need" the sub money for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing. Ther are TONS of games, mainly console, that need to provide salaries, server costss, marketing ect. and don't charge subs.I have always believed that subs aren't something that came out of the need to pay for XYZ, instead saying you have to pay for XYZ came from companies wanting to charge a sub.
And those games you speak of are not MMORPGs with endless consumer demand in various ways, completely different story.
You mean like the RIFT account bug where anyone could log in to your account without a password? A user found and submitted that bug and then Trion acknowledged it (only after it was published). Why do you think we have coinlock now (which is an awesome feature)? How about the 8 hour queues for the first week? How about numerous skill bugs and class issues where some mechanics have been broken.I've been there since before the beginning and RIFT has had several major issues along with their terminal performance struggle. It's a good game, but certainly no better than any other release out there. What has made those problems bearable is the very rapid development and deployment cycle Trion has; the same sort of cycle that Arena Net has.You make the "this game is better because I said so" claim like none of us have played both. Once again your biased agenda shows.
When GW2 fans accuse others for 'biased agenda' it is a comedy gold. One just needs to have a look at the bug section of GW2 and find out the amount of bugs it has and how those bugs from release are still there.
No one else except for GW2 fans would claim that Rift and GW2 had EXACT amount of bugs or that Rift had more bugs than GW2.
Rift is knows for its stable and quality release. And anyone here who is un biased and not clouded by their own 'agenda' would freely admit it. I am not evena Rift fan or anything but this is not some secret that Rift had a great and stable launch with minimal bugs.
But thanks for the laugh. There is reason why Rift is known for one of the best launches along with games like LOTRO.
I thought Rift and GW2 both had pretty good launches - neither were flawless, but both were well above average as far as the industry goes. Of course, both had very, very long (mostly) open beta periods, which both companies software at the beginning of their open beta would have been considered "release quality" from most any other company in the industry.
I dont think these long beta periods truly contribute to the readness of mmos on launch day anymore. Sure they do serve some "beta" related purpose, but for the most part they just seem to be something the devs sell to consumers to get more money for the game before the game is even launched.
Betas use to be for TESTING the games. Now there just used by the masses to see if they like the game enough to pay for it or to pre play the game to get a leg up on those that hadnt pre-purchused the game or participated in any of the betas.
I'm not a fan of Rift and never plan on playing it but I don't think any company owes their customers a pay option. It they don't like the idea of lifetimes, then thats their perogative. The size of their client base will reflect the opinions of the consumer.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I always thought the opposite about lifetime subs. Considering that in order to even make it worth the purchase the buyer has to play for 18-24 months to offset the cost. 1-3 months is all I have ever bought sub wise, due to the fact in 18 months I may no longer be interested in that particular game.
If I would have bought a lifetime then quit playing before the 18-24 month mark, then that seems to be money lost.
But I am not in the game making industry, so maybe he is correct.
I would buy a lifetime for Rift if it was offered tho.
It's all about retention. the higher your retention rate is a couple of years down the line, the less likely you are to actually end up ahead by selling lifetime subs.
There will always be a price point where the developer makes money in teh long run on lifetime subs. And there's always a date to start selling them at a price, say $199, where it will make you money. the longer the game has been out, the more incentive there is to introduce lifetime subs. I'd say, the day Trion makes them available is the day it's not worth it to the consumer.
Originally posted by KuppaLots of people angry with my opinion, again its my opinion not a fact. I don't believe subs are good business model and telling your players you "need" the sub money for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing. Ther are TONS of games, mainly console, that need to provide salaries, server costss, marketing ect. and don't charge subs.I have always believed that subs aren't something that came out of the need to pay for XYZ, instead saying you have to pay for XYZ came from companies wanting to charge a sub.
Except it's not about the model. It's about the quality of the game. Here we have rift that is successful enough to be releasing what appears at 1st glance to be one kickass expansion. Time will tell. Regardless. if the game is desireable and worth the fee, then it doesn't matter what that fee is really, as long as it's a value and is desireable. GW2 is not an "Awesome Game" No. It's an "Awesome Game fot the money". There is no way it would have nearly the popularity it has now if it were sub based. It would no longer be the value it is now.
For the game to be "worth the fee" the fee matters, not sure what you are trying to say with "the fee doesn't matter".
Each game has an inherent value to it. Each game is worth what it's worth to the playerbase as a whole. The market is full of games that were not worth the monthly fee. They fell on their face. Companies tried to monitize the playerbase in ways that exceeded what the game is worth.If ever there was the most awesome MMORPG ever created that was able to recapture everyone's attention they all wanted to play this game for years to come. You'd pay the 15/mo fee (Unless there is some kind of pride factor here that you will bypass good entertainment on principal alone) You'd pay it because it was worth it'It costs me more for the cans of Coke I drink while I play my MMOs than the MMOs themselves. It's really a weak argument.
I have run into this argument before. People also bring entertaiment as a whole, first time I see it with drinks(very creative). But, for me(again personal opinion) I don't compare a sub price of a game to how much does it cost for me to "see a movie or go to an amusement park, ect..". I compare it to other games which is the direct competition. If the game for me is not worth the 15 dollars(even though its a good game) I won't pay it, even if its cheaper than all the Pepsi's I might drink. Again, I look at both the game and the price(related to its direct competition).
And what about my 1st point? About value? If there was a game all your friends were clammoring about, one that became a smash hit, one that got everyone all worked up all over again, one that wasn't full of empty hype but actually delivered, you wouldn't pay it even if it was a value at 15/mo?
My argument is not to pay 15 dollars ever. Its to only pay xx when xx is deserved. That game you speak of could be 50 bucks a month, if its worth it I will play it.
That's my point. The revenue model isn't dead, there are just no games on the market worth it. I get that, Don't blame you for it either. I play Rift. I'm willing to pay. Someone else says, Nope, not worth 15/mo. I respect that. But it's not about 15/mo, it's about Rift. Or WoW, or EVE, or any other game out there that doesn't thrill you enough to pay it.
Lots of people angry with my opinion, again its my opinion not a fact. I don't believe subs are good business model and telling your players you "need" the sub money for new feature development, salaries, server costs, marketing. Ther are TONS of games, mainly console, that need to provide salaries, server costss, marketing ect. and don't charge subs.
I have always believed that subs aren't something that came out of the need to pay for XYZ, instead saying you have to pay for XYZ came from companies wanting to charge a sub.
And those games you speak of are not MMORPGs with endless consumer demand in various ways, completely different story.
COD, might not pump out content like an MMO but their servers are WAY more tasked than all mmos appart from WoW. They have salaries to pay and they pay WAY more marketing than any MMO game.
Comments
Honestly, as a player, I could care less.
If a game is worth it to me (it's fun, I have friends in it, the community is great), I'll pay whatever to play it. Doesn't matter to me if it's a monthly sub, or B2P, or cash shop whatever, or LTS. That being said - I usually am not comfortable enough with a game (don't know if I enjoy it ~enough~) to pay for a LTS until I've been playing it for a good while. I wouldn't chuck out $200 up front on a game, especially if it's an unknown quantity. There are some titles I'm leery of even chucking out the $40-50 box fee on (even many of those with trials). By the time I would be comfortable shelling out $200+ on a LTS, I would probably already have a year or more invested in the game with high playtime.
So, at least to me, it's all about investment and commitment. The more fun I have playing the game, the more I'm likely to spend on it. However, I won't much at all spend up front just on the promise of having fun - I've been burned way too many times on games that look great, or get great reviews, or get hyped, only to play the game for a few hours and never turn it back on again. Many times I feel as if I've wasted my money on that because it wasn't fun enough for me to warrant the money I spent on it.
That being said - LTS make for a great marketing item for players, but I don't think they will cripple a MMO financially. There is a lot you can do with a chunk of money upfront that you can't do with a trickle over time, even if that trickle over time is more money. One in the hand is worth two in the bush, and money in your pocket is always better than the promise of more money later on (which is never guaranteed). It's all about how you work your financial books - if you play the long game and plan for that more money over time, or if you want the capitol now to leverage for the future. That is for the accountants to really deal with moreso than anything.
As far as if it's in bad taste or not for Trion to say that about LTS - nah, they are just being honest about their income model. They depend on revenue over time, and that's how they have structured their costs and plan for the future - so they've already got a plan in place and LTS doesn't fit that for them.
blizzard does spend a lot of time trying to upgrade its REALLY old game engine though in their defense but they are just bad period and greedy. I know after trying MOP and seeing what the new end game is like in wow i wont be going back . All they released was pet battles a new talent system majority of their playerbase hates , a few new land masses , about 200 daily quests , and the same ol heroics and raiding garbage. PVP is still terrible , the community is still just as vile , and the game is just leagues behind current games out there . But blizzard is smart , they know their playerbase is dying off so they make the game more kid friendly , release lego blocks on cartoon network , and release cute panda races for both horde and alliance. See what they did there? its brilliant really.
When GW2 fans accuse others for 'biased agenda' it is a comedy gold. One just needs to have a look at the bug section of GW2 and find out the amount of bugs it has and how those bugs from release are still there.
No one else except for GW2 fans would claim that Rift and GW2 had EXACT amount of bugs or that Rift had more bugs than GW2.
Rift is knows for its stable and quality release. And anyone here who is un biased and not clouded by their own 'agenda' would freely admit it. I am not evena Rift fan or anything but this is not some secret that Rift had a great and stable launch with minimal bugs.
But thanks for the laugh. There is reason why Rift is known for one of the best launches along with games like LOTRO.
I thought Rift and GW2 both had pretty good launches - neither were flawless, but both were well above average as far as the industry goes. Of course, both had very, very long (mostly) open beta periods, which both companies software at the beginning of their open beta would have been considered "release quality" from most any other company in the industry.
Well remember what was said. " The only game able to kill WoW will be WoW" They seem to be on there way to a spank bottom.
And those games you speak of are not MMORPGs with endless consumer demand in various ways, completely different story.I dont think these long beta periods truly contribute to the readness of mmos on launch day anymore. Sure they do serve some "beta" related purpose, but for the most part they just seem to be something the devs sell to consumers to get more money for the game before the game is even launched.
Betas use to be for TESTING the games. Now there just used by the masses to see if they like the game enough to pay for it or to pre play the game to get a leg up on those that hadnt pre-purchused the game or participated in any of the betas.
sorry for misspellings
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
It's all about retention. the higher your retention rate is a couple of years down the line, the less likely you are to actually end up ahead by selling lifetime subs.
There will always be a price point where the developer makes money in teh long run on lifetime subs. And there's always a date to start selling them at a price, say $199, where it will make you money. the longer the game has been out, the more incentive there is to introduce lifetime subs. I'd say, the day Trion makes them available is the day it's not worth it to the consumer.
Considering the track record of P2P games offer LTS, why would any sensible company want to offer them? Consider:
CO - Dead
Hellgate London - Dead
LOTRO - F2P
STO - F2P
TSW - sinking
I know there are a couple others I missed, and none of them are doing any better.
One can argue: 1. LTS are offered on marginal games for a quick buck or 2. Only shortsighted/bad companies offer them at all, or 3. Both.
Regardless, the track record for P2P games over even the medium term (forget longterm) is very poor.
GW2, PS2, Lotro, War, LoL, Skyrim. Games.
You and me sir, are on the same page
COD, might not pump out content like an MMO but their servers are WAY more tasked than all mmos appart from WoW. They have salaries to pay and they pay WAY more marketing than any MMO game.